“Mr. Unz concludes that the East Asians are an exception to his theory that depressed socio-economic conditions are responsible for the low IQs in southern Europe.

“The East Asians are indeed an anomaly for Mr. Unz’s environmentalist theory. The IQ in impoverished China is the same as that in affluent Taiwan, Singapore, Japan, and South Korea. But Mr. Unz is wrong in his assertion that the high IQs of the East Asians despite depressed socio-economic conditions are an exception. The same problem for Mr. Unz’s environmentalist theory is present in the IQs of western and eastern Europe, where communism depressed socio-economic conditions but IQs have been virtually identical to those of affluent western Europe. In our 2012 compilation we give a median IQ of 97.2 for ten former communist countries and a median IQ of 99 for 14 countries of northern and central western Europe. This negligible difference of 1.8 IQ points indicates that the depressed socio-economic conditions of eastern Europe had virtually no adverse impact on their national IQs.

“The comparison of the IQs in eastern Europe with those in northern and central western Europe provide a quasi experiment to test Mr. Unz’s environmentalist theory. Take a group of ten nations in eastern Europe, subject them to communism for half a century, with the result that their standard of living is greatly reduced compared with that in the control group of 14 affluent countries of northern and central western Europe. Mr. Unz’s environmentalist theory predicts that the IQs in the nations in eastern Europe will be greatly impaired, while our genetic theory predicts that the adverse environment will have had little adverse effect on their IQs. The fact that the impoverished environment of communism has had virtually no adverse effect on he IQs in eastern Europe confirms our theory of the largely genetic determination of national IQs and is a serious anomaly for Mr. Unz’s environmentalist theory.

“The IQ of 97.2 in eastern Europe is significantly higher than that in the Balkan nations that have also experienced depressed socio-economic conditions comparable to those in eastern Europe, but where the median IQ is 92. The most reasonable explanation for this is that the people of the Balkans are a mixed race European-Middle Eastern people who differ genetically from those of eastern and western Europe.”

“The IQ of 97.2 in eastern Europe is significantly higher than that in the Balkan nations that have also experienced depressed socio-economic conditions comparable to those in eastern Europe, but where the median IQ is 92. The most reasonable explanation for this is that the people of the Balkans are a mixed race European-Middle Eastern people who differ genetically from those of eastern and western Europe.”

Or that the Balkans are more mountainous and have a higher proportion of enclosed ancient vallies full of people who hate the people in the adjacent enclosed ancient valley i.e. a bit like most of the world was for a very long time with a few notable ancient and medieval exceptions until industrialization (itself starting among one of the exceptions).

the Balkans are more mountainous and have a higher proportion of enclosed ancient vallies full of people who hate the people in the adjacent enclosed ancient valley

The only problem wit that theory is that it’s not true. But I’m getting the sense that coming up with cock-eyed theories which are not true and casting about frantically for evidence to support them is the principle occupation of everyone on this blog.

If there are latitudinal IQ bands and it goes from 70 average at the tropics to (say) 105 at the northernmost band before the arctic circle then you only have 35 IQ points and 65 degrees (ish) to play with so that’s (roughly) 1/2 an IQ point per degree or say you divide it into seven bands with 5 IQ point jumps each extending 8-9 degrees. If so then it would be possible for a long distance (latitudinally) invasion to create a big jump or drop in IQ – at least among the elite – but most invasions in history have come from adjacent populations.

So i find it hard to believe a one-band invasion like Turkey-Balkans could make more than 1-5 points of difference depending on the final proportions – and only the maximum if they completely replaced the natives – unless it was combined with a major cultural change e.g. the adoption of abandonment of something like FBD marriage. (Although maybe there was a partial emulation?)

Large effects would require multiple band invasions imo like the Finns invading the tropics.

Looks true to me *on average* which, if the IQ scores are an average too, is fine. The critical point would be if there were IQ differences between the relatively flat and the relatively mountainous regions of the same country. I’d expect the bits along the Danube to be pretty high IQ and the backcountry less so – or the whole thing could be nonsense.

.
“I’m getting the sense that coming up with cock-eyed theories which are not true and casting about frantically for evidence to support them is the principle occupation of everyone on this blog.”

hubchik has been amassing a ton of evidence for the idea that varying levels of consanquinous marriage have an effect on things like ethnic nepotism, corruption, individualist vs collectivist, high trust vs low trust etc. IQ has barely been a part of this at all. Her response to Mr Unz was mainly on the data.

Ron
“Looks like someone here may be shifting a bit to what I call the “Weak IQ Hypothesis”

I haven’t shifted one inch.

If you believe there are latitude based IQ bands mediated predominantly through genetics then disparities along the same line of latitude – if they exist – will have a logical explanation whatever that might be. One possible explanation is invasion / migration across those latitude bands.

However, logically, if you have 35 IQ points acoss 65 degrees of latitude, then short range invasions / migrations can only be responsible for relatively small differences unless they completely replace the original population. If there is a bigger gap e.g. the Balkans, then it seems more likely to me that the invasion / migration from further south aspect may be responsible for part of the gap but not all. As i believe inbreeding depression may be one factor behind latitudinal disparities i would suggest the disproportionate amount of mountainous terrain may be responsible for the rest of the gap.

“The method of correlated vectors yielded small to modest positive and negative correlations between score gains and g loadings in all cases where there were Flynn effects on the large majority of subtests, with an N-weighted r = -.07. The combined literature is now suggestive of a modest negative relationship between g and d.”

“Fig. 1 displays the secular trends in GA mean scores (IQ units) from 1954 (IQ mean set to 100) through 2002. The GA means seem to have increased more or less linearly from the 1954 to the 1969 draft cohort. In this period, the gain in mean GA was 8.6 IQ points, corresponding to an average gain of nearly 0.6 IQ points each year. From 1970 to 1976, inclusive, the gain was 1.4 IQ points (approximately 0.2/year). From 1978 to the beginning of the 1980s, there was a remarkable decline in the mean GA scores, corresponding roughly to 1.2 IQ points, which is almost the whole increase during the period 1970–1976. From the beginning of the 1980s to the mid 1990s there was a more or less steady increase in the GA means amounting to approximately 3 IQ points, corresponding to a gain of about 0.2 IQ points each year. From the mid 1990s or so, the GA means were declining again.”

Nevertheless, Ron Unz is right in saying “when I examined the Ireland IQs in that book (p. 402), I discovered that he had inexplicably failed to include the massive 1972 study of 3,466 students which established an Irish IQ of 87 and which had appeared in all of his previous books”.

Why ? I don’t know, but I fear that the most probable reason is that this omission was clearly … intentional.

“Fig. 1 displays the secular trends in GA mean scores … From the mid 1990s or so, the GA means were declining again.”

Wrong quote.

This should be this one :

“At first glance, the quite close association between increases in mean standing height and mean intelligence test scores found in the present study from the draft cohorts in the mid 1950s to about 1987 (Fig. 3) may seem to suggest that nutrition improvements (and better health care) may have been a potent factor in this period. However, most of the height gains seem to be due to increases in the upper half of the height distribution (Fig. 4). This is quite the opposite of the tendencies of intelligence test scores. These results seem to weaken the nutrition theory considerably, at least for the birth cohorts after 1950 (test year 1969). A further blow to the nutrition theory is the fact that intelligence score gains continued for about a decade after the cessation of height gains.”

@猛虎 – ron unz said: “when I examined the Ireland IQs in that book (p. 402), I discovered that he had inexplicably failed to include the massive 1972 study of 3,466 students which established an Irish IQ of 87 and which had appeared in all of his previous books”.

“he” being richard lynn?

i wonder what the story is with that 1972 study. i discovered that the data was gathered as part of a master’s thesis. that doesn’t make the data automatically bad or questionable — maybe it’s an excellent master’s thesis. but it does make you wonder. the data was never published anywhere else apart from in the thesis, afaik.